Getting owned pets with families looking for them home is the most important role of any animal management system. Pets with owners take up valuable shelter space that could be freed up simply by reuniting the two. These pets need not contribute to kill rates, as there is no need for them to be killed. And unless the pet has been involved in some kind of nuisance or incident, removing barriers to their being collected is a primary way of increasing live release rates.
Unfortunately however, rather than be a simple process, often finding and claiming lost pets is convoluted, bureaucratic and, at its worst, ends with the death of a loved pet. The ultimate failure of a pound or shelter is to kill a pet with an owner wanting and willing to claim them. And more owners than ever are speaking out when it happens.
Reported on the 2nd of September, Kayla Stewart’s family’s pet ridgeback – four-year-old Dexter – was put down by Canberra’s Domestic Animal Services before the family could collect the dog from the pound.
Dexter went missing on August 19 and staff at the centre and RSPCA officers told Ms Stewart the dog had not been found. On August 28 she received an eight-day-old letter notifying her that the dog was at the animal shelter in Symonston. The letter warned the dog would be sold or put down if unclaimed after seven days.
When Ms Stewart’s partner and son went to collect the dog, they were told Dexter had been put down. She said Territory and Municipal Services staff said the dog’s body could not be returned to the family for burial “because it had been taken to the tip”.
A Domestic Animal Services spokesperson said,
“While it is unfortunate that the dog was euthanised one day before the owner made contact with DAS, and we are very sorry for the owner’s loss, staff followed procedure”
Which of course is little comfort to the family, who is now mourning the loss of their pet.
“It shouldn’t have happened like this. We are just so upset.”
Interpreting non-response to a letter, or even a phone call, to mean a pet is unwanted will always result in pets dying who didn’t need to. In this case, the agency knew where the family lived. Having a ranger drop around at dinner time to confirm whether Dexter was or wasn’t wanted, would have almost certainly saved his life.
Does that seem like a big ask? Well, ask yourself what your yearly pet registration fees (which you will pay over the life of your pet) are paying for – is it for someone to sit in an office and send letters? Or is it for agencies to get pets home?
The next day on the 3rd of September, a report of a ‘mix up’ saw Kylie Limpus’s pet dog Max, a 10-year-old female cattle dog-boxer cross, killed at the RSPCA-operated Noosa pound (QLD), a day after Ms Limpus had left her details with the Tanawha pound.
Ms Limpus believes a mistake which saw her dog listed as a border collie at Noosa meant Tanawha staff were unable to properly search for Max.
Said Ms Limpus of council procedures:
“I’m angry now because we could have saved her. Max was at Noosa when I asked at Tanawha if she was in the pound. No one ever suggested I try Noosa. If they’re going to send dogs to Noosa they need to tell people they could be there.”
Unaware she would be too late, Ms Limpus went to the pound thinking she would be bringing Max home. Instead she was told the family dog had been killed.
Communicating the ‘flow’ of pets to owners is vital to reuniting pets and owners. If you’re moving pets, owners have to know to broaden their search. If you have lost and found website, it is only as good as the awareness of its existence.
But most tellingingly, Max was never made available for rehoming, or to rescue groups. Why was this friendly, senior pet not given a second chance?
From the news today (yes, that is three incidents in Sept alone) Kylie McCrea of Sawyers Gully, had been negotiating the release fee for her two Jack Russell terriers (Nikki, 1, and Rocket, 2) which had risen to $960, with Maitland City Council (NSW).
The RSPCA told her on Friday that the dogs would be held until she had a chance to contact the council and get back to them. However, despite not failing any health or temperament tests, a supervisor deemed the dogs a ‘nuisance’ and they were killed before Ms McCrea could come up with the money needed.
The biggest problem with holding people’s pets until they pull together the money needed for any fines or charges their lost pet has incurred (aside from the obvious ethical implications of using a living, breathing creature as collateral – if you wouldn’t do it to a child, you probably shouldn’t be doing it to people’s pets), is that often in the process of getting the dog or cat released, stuff goes wrong.
Either time runs out, or communication breaks down, or people simply make mistakes. The result is nearly always the same. A pet who has a family who wants it back, is killed. And we move further away from a humane animal management system.
When family pets entering the pound system, fail to make it out alive, we should view it as the ultimate system failure. Loved and wanted family pets being ‘sheltered’ to death, is always a tragedy.
RIP to these four doggies and sympathies to their families.
See also: The ultimate failure: when pets with owners are killed by pounds
Note. If you’re going to comment that these people shouldn’t have lost their pets in the first place, or that poor people who can’t afford reclaim fees shouldn’t have pets, or make any other asshat judgement on these owners – save yourself the time. Your comment will spammed, not published.
Isn’t the root cause of this problem the automatic assumption (which pretty much permeates rescue) that when pets end up in pounds its because owners are irresponsible and uncaring? So the basic proposition which underlies all of these deaths is that only bad people have pets end up in the pound, therefore if you’re a bad person (which you must be because your pet is in the pound), it doesn’t matter what the pound does with the pet.
If the basis assumption was that pets ended up in pounds because something went wrong or a mistake was made, it would change the way pets were handled.
And $900 is an awful lot of money for someone on a limited income to raise in a hurry. Doesn’t make them irresponsible, just not well off – why can’t people pay off pound fees like all sorts of other fines?
The council see things in black and white and we all know life is not black and white. I don’t know who could put down a healthy animals especially if its just because a fee wasn’t paid. Personally I hate my council and aren’t they supposed to be working for their community. My council are like head hunters fining you every chance they get. I cannot believe these love pets were killed when there was nothing wrong with them other than they got out :-(
This is a disgrace. I will not be giving the RSPCA another cent. They have set themselves up over the years as the official voice against animal cruelty, neglect and abuse, the power has gone to their heads, and they have lost direction. Their only motivation is greed and money. Time for a big shake up, sack the management and supervisors. I shudder to think what actually goes on behind closed doors. As a animal lover I cannot support a charity that conducts itself in this way. RSPCA You have left families heartbroken, you have killed the dogs. It is bad enough when you lose a pet through illness or accident, but to have your pet killed by the very people who are supposed to protect them would be a very hard pill to swolow. The RSPCA has shown that animal life means absolutely nothing to them. They should be encouraging the bond between human and pet, not tearing it down. Now I know why so many people take their perfectly healthy pet they have tired of down to the local Vets to be killed, you know what our local Vets have more morales and value animal life far more than that, they refuse to do it.